The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON', MONDAY. JULY 25, 1836. in ittention to their public duties. We arc fully aware of the frivolous remarks to which this appeal may ex pose us ; but we shall be well content it even at that cost we secure the object which we in this ar_.!uinent propose to ourse!v—the arousing the Conservative power at a moment when we feel convinced its exerciie must .prove triumphant. In proof of the strenuous crofts made by the Whigs and Radicals to maintain their curious c ontinuation, we may observe, that of the three measures having reference to the Church, O'Connell proposed, at the meeting at the Fo rcign-office, to accede to the suggestion of Lord John Russell, that two of the Bills should be aban doned. To this, as a point of party tactics, there could be small objection. But what will our readers think avben they are told that the very two Bills thus abandoned by Lord J. Russell at the Whig-Radical Osembiage were by his Lordship himself declared to be foillicoming, in reply to a question from Sir James Graham ? We do not accuse the noble leader of temp House of Commons of any preconcerted insin cerity in this ; but we have undoubtedly a right to chare;e him with great negligence, when receiving the orders of his superior in a matter so important as that under consicieso.tion. Yet let us deal leniently with the Noble Lord. Having two classes of Radi cals to conciliate, the Eoslish tint] , the Irish, it would be unfair to press him too severely on the subject of the O'Connell mandate. The English Radicals, .with rare patience, have waited for the only encouragement to which persons of that description are sensible, and they have waited in vain. But not alone have their own views been frustrated ; they have had the add tional mos:ification of witnessingthe perfect triumph of their Hiberi:. an rivals. The rent so long col lected in Ireland ;Yas not likely to provoke more than a moderate envy.- ,But when in England, not only political influence, but i secuniary advantage, re warded the determination of Mr. Daniel OTonnsll to s upport the Government at all hazards, the long suffering Radicals, not without reason, rebelled, And left it to Lord John Russell to say whether he, could hope to carry on his Government without their assis tance. The Noble Secretary for the Home Depart ment is understood to have carefully compared his chances of support with reference to the Radicals of England and those of Ireland. The disputed point was carried by a whisk of the " tail." And the cackle of the Middlesex goose, the bray of the animal of Bath, the ejaculations from Liskeard, and the remonstrances from Marylebone, were all unheeded under the domi nant influence of the Irish howl: It is understood, however, that these sweet voices were harmonised on Saturday into a choral song of Ministerial permanency ine• to any p . Nothitsg could be more natural. Yet, without p retend vaticination, we venture to predict thas' these elements, so loosely combined, cannot possibly hold together, and that the only satisfaction which will remain to the unparalleled Administration will be, that each individual member thereof will be entitled to boast in the words of the quotation used by Lord J. Russell at the Bristol dinner—" What is done is done, and I have had my hour."—Times. The Liberal interest is. in no pleasant predicament, either for itself or for the country, at the present 'mo ment ; but it is not our fault that matters have at length come to a pass which is calculated to damage the Government on the one hand, and to favour the aspirations of the Tories on the other. Ever since the accession to office of the Melbourne Ministry, we re peatedly, and in the most friendly spirit, warned them against the danger of making concessions to Toryism, in the hope of conciliating a party whose interests, feelings, and habits, being diametrically opposed to those of the people, renders it impossible ever to -con ciliate them without a sacrifice of the public good, far too great to be compensated by their treacheroug forbearance, or equally treacherous support. The danger which we apprehended is now arrived. The Estaelished Church Bill for England, prepared in the spirit w 'lich we deprecated, and brought before the Le gislature es evered with the leprosy of High Church re commendation, is likely to be the cause of no small de gree of difficulty and embarrassment to the Govern 'neut. A large po.:t ion of the Liberal Members of the House of Commons, ss eha hitherto afforded the Admi nistration most able and e scient support, are resolved to withdraw from beimg pan : ,es to a Bill which leaves so many and so gross abuses in I,!ie Church - establish, naent unredressed. But while we blame Ministers for bringinc , forward a measure under ausc ices which, in themselves, were a guarantee for its being inefficient and unsatisfactory, and we do not consider the: those Members should be held free of censure who aequiesCed in the progress of the Bill to its present stage, and Ytow, at the last hour, when the Government was confidently expecting their co-operation, turn round in the very face of the enemy, who is anxiously Watching a favourable opportunity of attack, and leave Ministers and their more steady supporters exposed to the whole brunt of the action. We denounced the Bill on its first introduction as a mere mockery of Reform, and should have been louder in our condemnation of it, but from an unwilligness to distract public attention from other measures of Government, which in being rejected from the Lords must involve a change in the elements of the Constitution ; but though we are of opis nion that the Bill deserves to be scouted by all true Re formers, and that the report and recommendations on which it is founded should have been spurned from the first by the Ministry, yet it doss not appear altogether fair in any liberal Member of the House of Commons, after having given a silent sanction, or at least a quali fied assent to the several stages of its progress, now to turn round in opposition, and by their desertion leave Ministers, and the other and better measures with •which they are identified, unsuppotted in the hour of need. This is a time above all others when the friends and representatives of the people should be united, and merge all minor differences in a common effort to carry into effect those first great changes which the necessi ties of the times most unperativelv call for ; and it would be as painful to us to have a suspicion forced upon us that one party seceded from the Ministry from disap ponted ambition, as that another continued in their support flom the enjoyment or expectation of an undue share of patronage. Even if the Bill were not alto gether se ohjeclionablee as it is—the very Commission proposed to be appointed to watch over its execution would afford sufficient grounds for its rejection. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London and Gloucester, are the last to wh,-.111 any act for purifying the abuses of • the Church sl:Culd be confided. What ought a Reform Ministry to ;have to do with such persons as Dudley Earl of Ilarro...: , by, the Right Hon. Henry Hobltouse, or the Right Hon. Sir Henbert Jenner ? What right bad they to incorporate them as the Ecclesiastical di clelsiasi( they ticalCr)tit stoners of England ? further, why charge them trout the duties imposed upon them by their • Tory patrons, and replace then; by men of a more re forming spirit? The nomination of sod) persons " in perpetual succession" as the " Ecclesiaitical Commis sioners of England," is, in itself, a pledge than Reform Ministry could not intend a system so flagrantly (z..leu hated to perpetuate abuse to be of a permanent charac ter. Besides: there are two other Bills. L--the Church Discipline Bill and the Ecclesistical Revenues Bill—in progress, which, if passed, wo u ld ren d er it i m p o ssibl e for c 'the Church to escape a single session without the whole country with one voice proelaimincr its desire for the removal of so iniqUitous a systein of Ecclesiastical Government. The question now to be decided between the two parties is, which is to recede -- -t;ze English and Scotch Radical Members, or the Members 'of the Go vernment ? The predicament in which both are pigged is by no means enviable ; but we are, nevertheless, ofopi... mon that either may retire with unscathed honour fro m the contest. The Radical party have asserted their opi nions candidly and • honestly ; and their constituents can assuredly find no fault with them, if, after having done so, they decline by a division to peril an Adminis tration which is the only safe-guard against another attempt at Tory domination ; and, on the other hand, aye can see no valid reason why his Majesty's Govern mina should press to a conclusion a Bill which is in every respect prospective, and whose main provisions „cannot come perfectly into operation for at least the neeixt fifteen years. We would, therefore, pray the . . Adomistration to postpone the Bill for further consi and not to deem their deratis'nshonour implicated in carryitig a measure which has to a grea t exten t b een forced upon them, and to whose errors, only disco vered at the* eleventh hour, they cannot, what e v e r understanding' !may have existed, be considered mo- rally bound ; but we would more imperatively urge on both parties the extreme necessity of mutual com promise and mutual conciliation. It is not the in terests of England only, or of Ireland or Scot land, which are involved in any breach between the Liberal Members of the House of Commons—the cause of Liberalism calls upon every Well-wisher of the people of Europe to be united, and to sink every minor difference of opinion for the sake of promoting a cause which all have at heat t, and which is now in the greatest jeopardy. Let the Melbourne Ctbinet be compelled to resign, and the inevitable consequence will be, a reign of unprincipled Toryism . , both at home and abroad. We shall not only see England agitated, from one end of its confines to the other, by dissatis faction and disquietude, and Ireland exposed to nearly all the horrors of a civil war, but Toryism predominant over the whole continent of Europe. Portugal; per haps, stripped of its free Constitution—Spain laid prostrate at the feet of the Carlists—Lonis Philippe rampant over the small remains of liberty which exist in France—the mouths of the Danube closed against English commerce—and every safeguard now esta blished for the maintenance of our power in the East overthrown, to propitiate the grasping spirit, of the Emperor of all the barbarians. For what objects are the Russian Envoys now here present? For what es pecially has the Chancellor of all the Russias been sent here ? Is it to favour the cause of liberalism ? Is it to announce the ready compliance of the Czar with the demands of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the free passage ofthe Danube ? Is it to announce that Russia has no schemes of ambition either upon Turkey, upon Persia, or upon our Indian dominions ?—or rather, is it not to endeavour to blast those domestic reforms which are so much needed in every part vf the United Kingdom ; and by the basest intrigues to oust from its place of power the only Government that ever dared fearlessly and fairly to do justice to Ireland, and to every other question of reform which its situation and the time of Parliament would allow it to bring for ward? To-morrow it is possible we may find room for 1 a portrait, from unquestionable authority, of the prin cipal personage who figures in the new, but not unex pected, Rus,;:an Ambassadorship.—Morn. Advertiser. • The description %,,,;:ich we published on Saturday of the Whig-Radical fracas Downing-street, on the preceding day, was substantially direct. It is con firmed in all its important particulars by ti Ministerial and Movement journals. And in the single insiL;nce in which any of our Ministerial Contemporaries venture to impeach our accuracy they do so upon grounds which are not merely insufficient for that purpose, but which really show that even in this disputed particular we were strictly accurate. Before we say a word, however, upon.the comparatively unimportant subject of our own accuracy, we must hasten to communicate to our readers as fully as our information will permit what has taken place since the fierce altercation of Friday between the late belligerent, but now high con tracting, parties. We anticipated on Saturday that the time rescued from the pressing demands of public business in the House of Commons, by the ex ertions of Mr. Charles Wood to keep Members out of the House at four o'clock on Friday, would be di ligently employed " to soften asperities, to allay passions, to overcome scruples, to subjugate or pur chase opinions." We now announce that the interval thus gained has been diligently and successfully em ployed for these purposes. The conflicting .parties have agreed upon the terms, not of a solid and durable peace, but of an armistice—a convenient and tempo rary cessation of hostilities. The conditions of this honourable compact are, we believe, the following : The Melbourne Government are to be - permitted to carry the third reading of the "Established Church Bill" without any violent explosion of displeasure or resentment on the part of the Radicals, although some individual Radicals, who are more deeply pledged than the rest, are to be at liberty to vote against it. In order to carry this article into effect in the most con venient manner, it is understood that those Members of the Radical party who cannot, consistently with their past language and bearing, remain silent or speak with moderation upon the subject, will to-morrow find it necessary for their health, after the fatigues of the Session, to take a ride or drive out of town, or a steam-boat excursion, or any other agreeable recreation which may better suit their taste or convenience. It is agreed, in the second place, that his Majesty's Mi nisters, in return for the indulgence and forgiveness thus graciously accorded to them, shall abandon, first, the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, which they have already advanced to its last stage in the ,'-louse of Commons, in the belief that it is a judicious ant i ~ e neficial measure for the Church and the country; and, secOndlY, the Church Discipline Bill, introduced with the sut Tort of Government in the Upper House, of which all tho members of his Majesty s Govern ment must be presui2ed to have expressed their appro bation in Council, and of . which all those who have seats in the House of Lords, including the Premier, have publicly recorded their approik:tion as members of the Legislature. If this be not souncLog " the base string of humility " we are at a loss to know what is. But deeper degradation than even this has been submitted to, in order to pacify the unmerci ful Radicals, and to enable . Ministers to retain those miserable places which it is now evident they prize more highly than the sense of public duty, than the suggestions of conscience, or than even that personal honour of which Lord John Russell is reported to have made a vain and idle parade at the stormy meeting on Friday. There is a third condition of this treaty, as we are informed and believe, which we cannot transcribe, and which we feel assured will not be read by any manly and honest Englishman without a burning sense of shame and indignation at the insolence which dictated and the unutterable base ness which accepted it. Lord John Russell, we are told, is bound by compact with the Radicals to get up to-night in the House of Commons, and declare that the Bill which lie and his colleagues have advanced to a third reading, and are about to pass, " the Estab- . lished Church Bill," is a very insufficient and unsatis factory measure ; that it is good for little if regarded in any other light than as a small step in the progress of Parliamentary interference with the rights and pro perty of the Church ; that, offered by the heads of the Church with a view to permanent peace and security, it is just worth accepting as a ground work cud an engine of future 'and nnplacable war. This is the submission which, we understand, Minis ters lace agreed to offer to their Radical allies, and, if this information be correct, we do not hesitate to say that time surrender on the part of Ministers is unlimited and complete. It is giving up, in fact, the whole sub ject of controversy, for it is plainly impossible that the House of Lords should give their concurrence to a Bill sent up to them from the House of Commons with such a character as Lord John Russell, in compliance with this condition of the treaty, will have affixed to his measure. It is already seen how pliant the Minis ters of the Crown have been in their negociation with the Radicals. It is nut difficult to see that they will have sacrificed the interests of the country and their own honour in vain. The party with whom they have been dealing is o ne which will be satis fied with nothing ilhort of . complete m as t er d om . We cannot imagine anythm which Mi n i s t ers must not be prepared to yield if Off have be come parties to such a treaty as is above desarg le d, with the exception of place. But even this, which is plainly the only thing they prize, will not long be spared to them. Their allies, seeing bow easy it has been to seize the reality of power, will not be long con tent without its name, and its emoluments. Th e following article, which we extract from the Spectator, and which is believed to be the production of on e o f th e Lading mons, shows but too Radicals in the House of Com abject concessions, i plainly that Ministers, with all their -I,„:'e obtained merely a tem porary respite t o John Russell endeavoured t o s h ow that he ha d been misled by -1 his Ra dical opponents into the belief that they approved or Bills ; and Mr. Hume pleaded guilty to the charge of neg ligence, but retorted upon Lord John that the confidence of the Liberals had been misused by Government. Upon a review of the course taken by Ministers, we cannot perceive that they are entitled to reproach Mr. Hume and those who act with him. Ministers introduced three Bills, founded upon four Reports of the Ecclesi astical C o mmissioners. Of these, one, the Church Discipline Bill, was introduced into the House of Peers ; and little objection, from laymen at least,- has been made to 'it as yet. The other two, the Established Church Bill • a!qi the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill (the first fo: the regulation of episcopal incomes and duties, the second having reference to the patronage of Deans and CSapters and the augmentation of benefices out of eat he drill revenues), have been brought to their last stage in the house of Commons ; though, so I.ttle do I\temh3rs and ref,orters know of what is done in Parliament that the general impression among both has been that the Estab lished Church Bill alone has been in regular progress through the House. This Bill was brought' in on the 20th of. May, and the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill on the Bth of June. The third and fourth Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, cri• which they were respectively founded, were placed in the hands of Mem brs about the same time. Lord John Russell complains . that no opposition was given to these Bills till they had p.issed through certain stages, meaning, we suppose, the first and second readings. To this it must be replied, that the first reading was managed so as to pass as a matter of form merely ; and that, for the convenience of Mi nisters, the discussion was not taken on the second read ing, but postponed until the _motion for going into Com mittee, on the Bth of July ; when, for the first time, Lord John Russell explained the provisions of the Established Church Bill to the House. On that occasion the Liberals offered strenuous opposition to the measure. Mr. Lushing ton, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Harland, Mr. Wason; Mr.. Hume, Mr. Lennard, Mr. Buxton, and Mr. Charles Buller, all spoke in decided disapprobation ; and, on the question of translation of the Bishops, divided the House against Mi• ulster:. Ample warning of what the Ministerial Leader might expect was thus given a fortnight ago. " But it is said that the Radicals should have read the Commissioners' reports and the Bills in the interval between the first and second reading. True, they ought ; but the fact is, that human strength and faculties would break down under the task of mastering the contents of all the Parliamentary papers which it is the duty of Members to read and digest. Besides, we find that during the interval mentioned the Irish Municipal Bill, the Irish Tithe Bill, the English Tithe Bill, and many other measures of great import ance, were pressed on the attention of Parliament. It really seems as much as Ministers could expect that, on the very first regular discussion ofthe Church Bill—a discussion which had been postponed to suit their convenience—the Liberals spoke out against them. It would be a poor cause for Mr. Phillips, Mr. Hume, Mr. Duncombe, and other representa tives of large constituencies, to allege, that because they had been persuaded by Ministers not to oppose the second read ing, therefore they were bound not to oppose the third, but suffer bad Bills to become laws. These gentlemen have their constituents to look to ; and it is not surprising that, at the meeting, yesterday, they were- proof against the threats of Lord John Russell and the entreaties of Mr. O'Connell, and refused to be " whipped" into the House to aid in, passing the Tory Bills. 4" The question, however, now is, what will be done ? Ministers say they will resign, rather than abandon the position which they have so unwisely taken up ; because, say they, our personal honour' is pledged to perseverance. It is their own fault that their personal honour is pledged to carry bad measures. Their-first duty is care of the na tional weal, to which all other considerations should yield ; and courageous statesmen, of a high order of mind, would at once admit their error, and retrace their steps. Post ponenzent of the Established Church Bill' is the precise, business-like, and decorous course of dealing with it ; for it is perfectly clear that it has not been deliberately considered. But Ministers stand upon their notions of personal honour, and will not give up their Bills. There is probably suffi cient commiseration for their unhappy plight to allow them to crawl out of the dilemma. There is no wish on the part of any section of the Liberals to compel them to resign ; above all, to resign on this miserable ground, chosen for them by the Tories. IVhile those Members who are pledged to oppose the Bills by their votes will undoubtedly adhere to their pledges, it is probable that others will allow the Bills to pass under protest, and with a distinct understanding that the arrangement is merely temporary, and that the whole question is speedily to be opened up again." The manner in which Ministers are treated in this article, written immediately after the 'conclusion of such a treaty as we have described, indicates pretty clearly that other mortifications and disasters are in store for them, to end in that greatest of all imagin able disasters to them—their ignominious expulsion from place. It is now time that we should say a word or two in reply to the contradiction by the Ministe rial journals of our assertion, that Mr. C. Wood was despatched from Downing-street in all haste on Friday, to prevent the - formation of a House. This contradiction is founded upon the fact which we communicated to our readers on Saturday, that Mr. C. Wood and eleven other gentle men, holding office under the Government, were. present in the House at four o'clock on Friday. To be sure they were present.. The lobby and the House are very near to each other, and any man of moderate activity may be present in each alter nately, five tunes in a minute. Mr. Charles Wood, we repeat it, went down with the instruction to keep Members out of the House, so that forty should not be present when the Speaker counted the niimbers. We repeat, that he strictly obeyed this instruction. And if he himself, and twenty other Ministerialists, were actually in the House, taking special care that they made part of a number. less than forty, what has this to do with the question ? Or what can it prove, unless it can be that Mr. C. Wood was willing to dis play the small dexterity which he foolishly thought might help to save appearances.—Morning Post. MORAL LAW AND PUBLIC OPINION.-Sup pose, with respect to vices, the highest degree of reprobation in the moral law to be indicated by 20, and to descend by units as the reprobation become less severe : and suppose we put 20 for ,the highest offence according to popular opinion, and di minish tin number as it accounts less of the offence, we should probably be presented with some such gradation as this Moral Public Law. Opinion. Murder Human de.truction under other names ...... 18 ... 0 Unchastity, if of women Unehastity, if of men Theft Fraud and other modes of dishonesty Lying y Lying for particular purposes, or to particular / 17 2 or 0 classes of persons Resentment, and every inferior gradation ...... 16 6 Profaneness, and every inferior gradation We might make a similar statement of the virtues.—Dymond's Principles of Morality. GENIUS AND MADNESS.—Poets, and those in whom the imaginative faculty is inordinately developed, are particularly liable to morbid affections of the mind. Aristotle laid it down as a maxim, that "Nallum niagnum inaeniuni sine mixture insanice." This philosopher carried the sentiment to so great an extent, that he affirmed no poet was in possession of his right.mind. He quotes, in illustration of his opinion, the case of Marcus, a citizen of Syracuse, who, when he had lost his senses, became a fine poet ; but who, on recovering them, ceased to posses the talent. It has been maintained, for similar reasons, by the poet Dryden, that— " Great wit to madness nearly is allied, And thin partitions do these bounds divide." The same rule applies to the extraordinary developement of any, or all, of the mental faculties. In illustration of this we may mention the names of the poets Cowper, Collins, Tasso, and Nathaniel Lee. It is also said, that the illustrious author of the " Principia" was mentally afflicted when he wrote his comment on the Revelations. Lucretius was supposed to ha insane when he composed the splendid work " De Rerum Natura," more particularly those passages relating to death and the state of the soul, in his third book. Des Cartes died of an affection of the brain. Lord Byron frequently laboured under excessive exaltation of sentiment. The mind of our sweet poet Burns was frequently influenced by delusions of the imagination. The late Mr. Hogg appears to have been somewhat similarly affected. Sophocles was accused of ,N E./Inc before the tribunal, and only acquitted of insanity by - reciting his " Edipus" at Colonos. Pascal, the mathe matician, was hypochondriacal. The great novelist and poet, Sir Walter Scott, suffered through the same cause. Swift and Rousseau were insane. Luis de Camoens died whilst under the influence of this disease, at Lisbon ; and the immor tal author of " Don Quixotte," he who, according to Byron, " laughed Spain's chivalry away," died mad in an hospital at Madrid.—Neville on Insanity. DESTRUCTIVE FIRE AT PLYMOUTH —Ply mouth has again been visited by that most fearful of all scourges -Are; but, in the present instance, it is satisfactory to state that, thong' the destruction of property was far greater, it was still unaccompanied by that loss of life which rendered the late fire in the Citadel so peculiarly distressing. The flames were first discovered shortly after 12 o'clock on Saturday se'ennight, issuing from the windows of a house in Treville street, No. 56, the lower part of which was occupied by Mr. Knighton, as a baker's shop. An alarm was quickly given, and as soon as time permitted, all the engines in the neighbour hood, including the Royal Marine, Artillery, Dock Yard, and Citadel, were on the spot, under the directions of the mili tary ; but, from some extremely culpable cause, near an hour elapsed before a supply of water could be obtained, and the fire consequently soon assumed a most alarming aspect, extend ing to Mrs. Palmer's and Mr. Bowyer's, on the west, and Mr. Fry's, and a vacant house lately occupied by Mr. Honey, hatter, on the east—the whole of which, in tho end, were al inzsst tooll7 tipstreyed ; also communicating to the premises behind 'rreviile-street, tgyordg Norlcy House. In the latter . some low buildings connected with the baker's shop were the fin,: fall P. Prey to the devouring element, No account can be given a; f 9 the cause of the fire,—,Exeter Fly ing Post of Wednesday. On Saturday evening, the - 9th inst., Farmer John Arney, of Congresbury, who for some years past has at times had fits of insanity after eating a hearty supper, retired to the waggon-house, and hung himself, He was oUt down shortly after ; but life was extinct, SECOND 1 1 4 D I 1 T SUX OF CE, Scven o' Clock. I PER I Al, PARLIAMENT, (THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAi.ER took the Chair at four o'clock. TRINITY HARBOUR. Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition from Edinburgh, in favour of the Trinity Harbour Bill. The Hon: Btronet moved the second reading of the Bill. The LORD ADVOCATE opposed the second read ing, and would state why he conceived it ought not to pass. He had not during the present Session opposed any of the proeeedings with regard to this Bill. The promoters of the Bill had no right whatever to make a harbour within the bounds sought for by the present Bill. There was a judgment of the Court of Session by which a Mr. Alexander Scott had been prohibited for unloadin g goods, or making a dock for their reception withi n th ose bounds. Further, he had been prohibited from building, or erecting a harbour or dock, or from doing any thing so as to encroach on the rights vested in the Corporation of Edinburgh. There was only one point on which an express judgment had not yet been pronounced. The question the House had to consider under these circumstances was, would the House consent to pass a Bill empowering per sons to make an harbour within the limits of another harbour? It was clearly an encroachment upon the rights of property, and no case had been made out in the present instance to entitle the promoters of the Bill to in terfere with the rights and privileges of the City of Edinburgh, and the judgment of a Court of Law'. He would put it to any Hon. Member of that House ac quainted with the rights of private property, whether they would sanction such a proceeding. The measure had been before the House of Lords, but from the omission of certain clauses, it had been again brought back to that House ; but from the decision which had been come to by a Court of Law, it was clear the parties had no right whatever to make such an harbour. There was no former instance of a Bill being brought in after passing that House, and being thrown out in the other. The other side cited one instance in the case of Leith, where a Mr. Dunlop petitioned against a Bill ; but if it was neces sary, he could prove that that case was not at all within the parallel. The Dock Committee had op posed the Bill throughout, and they had a right to do so yet ; but how could they do so now, at that late period of the session, and after they had already spent a great deal of money ? Under all these considerations, he hoped the House would not sanction the unusual proceedings, and moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six Months. Mr. WILKS had a Parliamentary experience of thirty years, and had never before seen such an opposition shewn to any Bill which had ever come before the House, and he hoped, upon this occasion, the House . would stand firm. The decision of the Court of Session which had been alluded to did not at all bear out the untenable claim of the Corporation of Edinburgh : it merely went the length of saying that Edinburgh was entitled to the Harbour Dues along the shore, and not that Mr. Scott should not raise a harbour. The Court of Session had determined that the Corpora tion of Edinburgh were entitled to Harbour Dues. Now look at the case of the City of London ; that Corporation had a paramount right to the navigation of the River Thames, and had, therefore, a right to de mand dues ; but would it be tolerated that the city of London had any claim to say they had not only a right to claim Harbour Dues, but that they would also prevent parties from erecting docks, or any thing else, unless certain dues were paid. He was fully convinced the House would not allow the opposition that had taken place to be successful, but would sanction the second reading of the Bill. Mr. PRIN - GLE thought the opposition that had been made to the Bill had been made upon the best of all grounds —and that ground was supported by public opinion. There was a general satisfaction expressed when this Bill was thrown out. Various means had been tried to preju dice the minds of Hon. Members with reg ard to this Bill, and he held in his hand a paper whi c h had been circulated for Oat purpose, to a few passag6-from which he entreated the attention of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Elgin (Sir A. L. Hay). He wished to ask the Hon. and Gal lant Member if he knew any thing of this pamphlet, or if he understood what it meant? Sir A. L. HAY said he was not answerable for it. Mr. PRINGLE would read a few passages for the Honourable and Gallant Member's information. The paper had been circulated out of doors, in order to prejudice people's minds.—(Hear, hear.) It complained cf the unjustifiable opposition that was offered to this Bill, both in that House and elsewhere ; of the statements that had been made with regard to it, in which statements this pamphlet said there was not the slightest alloy of truth— that it (the opposition to this Bill) was grounded altogether upon the most palpable fallacies, and that as no just grounds could be stated in opposition to the Bill, the objections to it were grounded upon vague generalities and dullness. Now, he asked if it was fair to circulate such statements ? The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had stated in that House that this Bill had been lost elsewhere by a blunder, or something worse. Now, the objections to this Bill were founded upon the forms of the House, which had been altogether set at defiance by the promoters of. this Bill. These were the grounds upon which this Bill was rejected. He believed there had never beeen a ease productive of more pertinacity than the promoters of this Bill bad exhibited in endeavouring to pass it through that House. The House would agree with him in thinking it ought not to give its sanction to such a measure.— (Cries of " Divide, divide.") Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority in favor of the second reading -45 On our return to the gallery we found Sir A. L. HAY on his legs, protesting against the sys tem which had been pursued with reference to the present Bill, the object of which had been to defeat the progress of the Bill through the House of Lords. He should now move that the Bill be committed that day, notwithstanding the orders of the House. Sir GEORGE CLERK protested against scuh a course being pursued. There had been a good deal of irregularity connected with this Bill, and he hoped it would not be fur ther persevered in. There were more than a hundred in stances in which the Standing Orders had been dispensed with, but these were Bills to which no opposition was offered, but there was no instance of such a course being taken when a Bill was opposed as this one was. The Leith Police Bill had been instanced, but it was not at all an analogous case. It had passed that House after a very strenuous opposition. In the House of Lords, by mutual concession and compromise, a new Bill was introduced and passed ; but it was not at all the same Bill, or anything like it. The Hon. Member for Boston had said the case was analagous to a wharfinger's building, a dock, or wharf along the Thames ; but in all such cases the parties built upon their own property, while there was no allegation that this harbour was to be taken out of the sea-beach, which was the undoubted property of the Corporation of Edinburgh, which extended so far as the turnpike-road. He hoped the House would not afford such a pernicious precedent, as to give a party a right by Act of Parliament to do that which the Court of Session had precluded him from doing by an injunction. Under these circumstances, therefore, he trusted that the House would postpone the committal of the Bill until the usual period of eight days, in order that the parties aggrieved might come forward. Sir A. L. HA moved that the Bill be committed that day. The LORD ADVOCATE deprecated the establish ment of a precedent so contrary to every. decision hitherto made by the House. Mr. WILKS was quite sure, as the suspension of the Standing Orders had not been moved, the House would make an order that the Committee should sit to-morrow. Mr. PRINGLE said that this was_ the first case in which such a precedent had been set, as that, in an opposed private Bill which was brought before that House, the promoters of it should move that the Standing Orders be dispensed with, and that they should go forwards in such an irregular manner in defiance of all the Standing Orders. Sir A. L. HAY merely rose to put the House in pos session of what was the real petition to be heard by Coun sel. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh reported yesterday, that at the request of a solicitor of London he had signed a petiti on w hi c h h a d b een sent to hi m aga i ns t th Trinity Harbour Bill, of which be hoped that Counsel would approve. Consequently the Solicitor in London was the person to be heard. Sir G. CLERK said that the Hon. and Gallant Mem ber forgot to state that the magistrates of Edinbugh had unanimously approved of what had been done by the Lord Provost. LONDON CEMETERY BILL. Mr. D. W. HARVEY moved the third reading of the London Cemetery Bill. Mr. WILKS said every side of the House got up to say that these Cemetery Bills were good, and requisite for the health of the metropolis, yet not one Bill passed without upholding the clergyman in exacting large fees for doing nothing• He would not oppose the progress of the present Bill, hut be gave notice that next Session he and other ambers would oppose any Cemetary Bill wherein such unjust clauses were introduced, or unless the whole of the ground was consecrated, and no fees exacted. Mr. POTTER wished to know whether he was not right in supposing that the fees attached only to that part of the ground which was consecrated, and not to the other part, which was not ? Mr. D. W. HARVEY waa well pleased that the Hon. Member for Roston would call the attection of the House to the subject at a future time. In the meantime he kit rather surprised that the two Honourable Members who spoke last, the able advocates of the Dissenters, should advocate the consecration of the whole of the Ce metery grounds.—(" No, no," from Mr. Potter.) In reply to . the question, he had to say that originally it was pro-. posed that each body should pay two shillings to the clergyman, but he opposed the plan. He said the sum was too small, and that he would oppose the Bill unless it was augmented. It was under those circumstances that the sum had been increased to that which had been fixed in other Bills of a similar nature. After some observations from Mr. WILKS, Mr. HAR VEY, and Mr. A. TREVOR, Mr. POTTER rolved that the third realing be de ferred till to-morrow. Mr. HUME wished to know from the Hon. Member for Southwark, whether Dissenters would be compelled by this Bill to pay fees for interment i❑ consecrated ground ? MMr. D. W. HARVEY could not give a direct answer to the question of the Honourable Member ; but from his general knowledge he should say that Dis senters would not be compelled to pay fees. - Mr. BAINES thought that the Bill ought to stand over till this point re3pecting fees was ascertained, so that there should be no ambiguity about it. Mr. HINDLEY thought the Dissenters in that House would not be discharging' their duty, if they allowed this Bill to pass in its present shape. - Mr. HARVEY consented to postpone the third reading till to-morrow, which was accordingly done. COMMUTATION OT TITHES. A Message from the Lords stated that their Lordsliips had agreed to this Bill, with amendments, and on the mo tion of Lord J. RUSSELL the amendments were ordered to be printed. _ _ _ GREEK LOAN BILL. Mr. ROBINSON wished to ask a question respecting the Order of the Day for a Committee on this Bill. The Bill had been read a first and second time without the House being cognisant of its provisions ; and now they were called to go into Committee on the Bill at, perhaps, two o'clock in the morning. Papers had been put into the hands of Members only that day, and he therefore asked the Noble Lord to postpone going into Committee, till they had time to consider the provisions of the Bill. He was satisfied that the Bill would never pass till the House had a fair opportunity of discussing its merits. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would not ask the House to go into Committee on this Bill this evening, and he would take care that due notice was given when the discussion was to come on. Mr. ROBINSON said that the answer of the Noble Lord was perfectly satisfactory. The House then divided, when there appeared, For the motion For the Amendment Majority in favour of the committal of the Bill to- morrow COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (DURHAM) BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in answer to a question from Mr. A. TREVOR, said he should give directions for any thing to be done that was necessary to carry on the machinery of the Court of Common Pleas of Durham. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—MR. CUNDY. Mr. BENETT said that he ruse for the purpose of saying a few words with reference to his personal charac ter. He had been informed by friends, as well as by the reports in the public newspapers, that while he was attending his duty at the Assizes for Wilts, Mr. Nicholas W. Cundy had been brought to the bar of the House, and had made sundry answers to questions put by the Speaker and various other Members of the House. He had a copy of those answers in his hand ; and, if the House would allow him, he would go through them for the purpose of showing how perfectly void of truth almost every answer which Mr. Cundy had given was. Mr. Cundy had stated that he never solicited the attendance of Members on the occasion of the third read ing of the Brighton Railway Bill. He (Mr, Bennett) dis tinctly averred that Mr. Cundy had called on hire and had solicited his attendance on that occasion, when lie stated that a proposition would be made on the the third reading of the Bill. Again Mr. Cundy stated the conversation was not commenced by him.—(Hear.) That was not the fact, because he (Mr. B.) knew nothing of any of the reports that had been made ; and he declared most solemnly that he had never heard anything of the re muneration to Landlords until Mr. Cundy mentioned it to him. He said Sir C. Burrell was to have 15,000/. for six acres of land over which the Railway passed, and further that Sir: Charles . supported his line until the remuneration was proposed when he turned in favour of Stephenson's line. Mr. Cundy then gave evidence of some conversation held with him (Mr. Bennett) relative to the compensation to the Duke of Norfolk. Now the fact was that he never had heard one word of the Duke of Norfolk, nor was he aware that he was a Proprietor on the Line till he saw the Report of the evidence. Again, in his evidence, he denied that he bac ever said any member of the Committee had been tampered with ; the fact was that he (Mr. Cundy), had told him (Mr. Benett) that the ma jority had been got in favour of Stephenson's line by btibery, which had been expended to many Members of the Committee. He had also told him that the Chairman of the Committee had been very partial, because of his connec tion with the Duke of Richmond, whose interest was much connected with Stephenson's line. He (Mr. Bennett) had seen Sir C. Burrell, and found out that these statements as related to him wore false, for that the whole compensa tion he could ever expect would not amount to 3,000/. Mr. Cundy called upon him after, and was shewn in unexpect edly ; he (Mr. Burrell) said he did not want to say anything to him, as his former statements had turned out false. Mr. Cundy then repeated all he had before said ; and said he had never denied one word of it to Sir C. Burrell.—( Hear.) Instead of over-stating the case to Sir C. Burrell, he had under-stated it. It was not his wish to bring any party to the Bar of that House, all he. wanted was to assure the House that he had not over-represented Mr. Cundy. He should have considered it necessary tra come to the House in a matter personal to himself, if the Report had not gdno further than the Homo, but reading the account he had 'done, he could not hut think but that the facts had been overstated with respect to Sir Charles Burrell.—(Hear, hear.) He would say nothing more ; he dud not wish to conclude with a motion as he had no desire to see Mr. Cundy at the Bar. Sir CHAS. BURRELL regretted that his friend op posite had stated what he had done. There was a peti tion affecting his character before the House, and he should have preferred that the statement should have been de. ferred till that petition had been brought forward. He was ready to justify every action he had heed engaged in, and every action he had had.anythiro. to do with, in the course of these proceedin gs , Lord G. LENNQX having been alluded to, begged leave to say a few words, He understood the Hon. Mem ber for Wiltshire to say that he (Lord G. Lennox) had been charged with partiality, and with being influenced by his brother in his conduct on the Committee. It was to vindicate his brother and not himself that he rose. He could assure the House that he never bad directly or in directly communicated with his brother until long after the Bill had been in Committee except on one occasion, when the Solicitor for the Bill called at Goodwood, thinking to find him (Lord G. Lennox) there.—( Hear, hear.) His bro ther wrote to him, telling him that Mr, Clarke called to ask him (Lord George Lennox), to bring in his Bill, and recommending him to be cautious about pledging himself to support it, This was the only communication he had had with his brother. After the Bill had been in Committe, the agents requested him (Lord G. Lennox) to ask his brother if he would undertake it in the house of Lords. He wrote to him to that effect, and the answer was that he (the Duke of Richmond). could not pledge himself to undertake the charge of the Bill, as he was not at the time convinced that the line was the best or the most beneficial.—(Hear, hear.) It was not till long after the evidence was printed and published, that he undertook to conduct the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) As to any interest be had, this railroad would not go within twenty miles of his property. As to hlinself he would leave his conduct in the hands of the Committee. The Hon. Member for East Surrey (Captain Alsager) had himself moved a vote of thanks to him for his impartiality as Chair man of the Committee.—(Hear, hear, bear, and cheers.) There was a very full attendance of the Committee, and he was proud to say that the vote was- carried unanimously. (LEFT SITTING.) HO USE OF LORDS• The LORD CHANCELLOR tOOk h i !. seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. SCOTCH ENTAILS. On th e mo ti on o f th o rivilie of BUCCLEUGH, t h e Commons' a moodioonts to the Scotch Entail Bill were agreed to, LordSTRADBROKE presented a petition in favor of certain clauses in the Grand Jury (Ireland) Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition frem Sutherland against the Irish Tithe. Bill ; and a peti tion from the proprietor of a light-house against the Light houses Bill ; also a petition from the gold and silver workers of Inverness, against the Gold and Silver (Scotland) Stan dard Bill. The Noble Duke then presented a petition from the proprietors of Waterloo Bridge against the qup it gerford and Lambeth Suspension Bri4gp i The Bishop of ARA.Miti presented a petition horn Cork, to tbp Ren e effect althat 4rst presented by the NOI3IO .• •., Duke. Earl DEVON vresextecl a iaptiOop 44:4m the owners au4 p; opi.ctors o ian 1 Ca fie Sur..ey sii of tho. ricer, in riv3u or the -Bill. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from bri individual in Dublin; in support of the Protestant religion. Lord FITZGERALD and VESEI presented a poi tition from the Diocese of Cashel and Emly against the Irish Tivhe Bill. • - Viscount MELBOURNE presented petitions from Wicklow, Mayo, and the diocese of Fern., Wexford, Clares:'i and other places, praying for the ab o liti on o f t i t h es . CIVIL BILL. COURTS (IRELAND). • The Earl nf DEVON moved the second reading of the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill, which, after a few words- - from the Marquis of CLAN RICARDE, was agreed to. ; 14 MANCHESTER AND CHESHIRE JUNCTION' • RAILWAY. Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the Committee on the Manchester and Cheshire Junction Railway do re- . assemble, for the purpose of reporting specially the reasons on which they founded their resolution that the preamble had not been proved. The Earl of UXBRIDGE defended the Report of the Committee, and objected to the present motion, on the ground that the engineering difficulties were insurmountable. Lord WHARNCLIFFE contended that the line was a most useinl one, and that the evidence with respect to its practicability was most satisfactory. On the whole line of thirty miles long there were only three miles of dissent, and the promoters of the Bill had no ob joetion to deviate so far from their line, as t o re move the objections to its passing throngh Stockport. He thought the conclusion to which the Committee had ?, come was a most extraordinary one, and all the promoters now asked was, that the Committee would hear the evi dence in suppOrt of the conflicting line, and decide be tween them. After a few words from Lords UxnrannE and Dom, Lord SEAPORT would feel it his duty to support the motion for the purpose of showing their Lordships the grounds upon which the Committee had made these decisions, which, in his opinion, were most satisfactory. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeard, Contents Non -contents 23 Majority against the motion 5 The Marquis of DO WNSHIRE presented a petition from the . Clergy of the Diocese of Dromore against the , Irish Tithe Bill. RAILWAYS, The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, ss some anxiety had been expressed' relative to the adoption of a general rule as regarded the Railway Bills that might come under the notice of the Legislature, he begged to state tlrat a Com.. mittee of the other House had been for some time telling, and would very shortly report upon the subject. He should now move that a Committee be appointed, to ascertain how fir it might be expedient to make alterations in the Standing Order relative to Railways, between this and next Session.. The Duke of WELLINGTON enquired if the Com mittee would examine evidence ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not thi:ak such a step would be necessary at that advanced period of the Session. After a few words from the "Marquis of CLAN' RICKARDE, the motion was agreed to. ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND.) The House then went into Committee on the Established Church (Ireland) Bill, The preamble was postponed. Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to. On clause 3 being read, Lord LYNDHURST rose for the purpose of moving as an amendment the substitution of the wo•,•ds three' fourths" for " seven-tenths." The Noble Lord proceeded to address the Committee at some length in support of his . amendment. Lord HATHERTON supported the clause, as it 0 0 7 ginally stood in the Bill, The Earl of RIPPON supported the amendment. Lords Beresford, Westmeath, and Fitzgerald also spoke in favour of the -Amendment. (LEFT SITTING.) SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. VESSELS ENTERED INWARDS AT THE CUS' TOM-HOUSE, JULY 23. The Colunibine, Strannack, from Harnburgh ; Lady Keith , Burrows, Messina; Johanna Maria, Luths, Rustungsiel; Water Hen, Dodds, Restigouche ; Amity Hall, Ford, Jamaica; Elizabeth, Summers, Valencia ; M ar i ner , Sk ea d , Q ue b e c Louisa, Shepherd, Quebec ; Glasgow, Cray, Qu6 ec ; Cana dian, Morgan, Quebec ; Planet, Barclay, Jamaica ; M e dora, Coward, Jamaica; Thames, Rigmaden, Jamaica; Auriga, Chalmers, Sydney; lanthe, Brown, Newfoundland ; Quick silver, Heniken, Naples ; Louisa Campbell, *Queer , . Canton; Highbury, Falconer, Berbice. ENTERED OUTWARDS IN CARGO, JULY 23. The Highflyer, Newton, for Malaga; Kent, Tune, Bon logne ; Soho, Fraser, Antwerp ' • Princess Victoria, C0w,1090 Antwerp; Transit, Wrightson, Lisbon ; Elbe, Robso D , Con stantinople ; Isabella, Brown,, Bombay ; Scaleby Casa° , Robertson, Bombay. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO, Jar 2 3 . The William Jolliffe, Middleton, Calais; Batavier, Dunlop' Rotterdam ; Heros, Faillant, Calais ; Soho, Fraser, An t : werp ; Britannia, Fox, Ostend ; Commercial Packet, Hart, Rotterdam ; Perseverance, Judge, Bergen. CLEARED OUTWARDS IN BALLAST, JULY The Skuldd, Sande, for Sweden; Princess Royal, Ortothi, ; St. Petersburgh Emilie, Seb ewe lhi m, Elsineur ; Greyhoulia'' Kull, Foreign Port ; Ven e li a , Green, Raraouk ; Crols ll Prince F re d er i c k , Thome, Norway; Catharine, Margaruthar Hehr, Norway. . ARRIVALS AT LIVERPOOL, JULY 23. The Regatta, Blayney, from Archangel; Aurora, Palau; Robortson, Neill, Quebec. ENTERED FOR LOADING, JULY 23. The Gretry, Le Chere,_ for Antw er p ; M argaret For bes, Kiug, B oston; Planter, Little, Bahia; Derwent, Hewit t ' Batavia and Singaporc, ; Salathiel, Bell, Buen os Ayres; Royal William, ST.ith, Calcutta ; Victoria, Candler, Cherie' tcal ; Siren; 2teinerth, Elsineur and Pillau ; Alecto, Nor' man, Jal'oaica ; Nora Creina, House, M a l ta an d Z ar ,te; Chiatain, Nooney, Pernambuco ; Ceres, Blanchard, port' land, A.S.; John Walker, Black, Quebec ; Helena, Greco"' • Rotterdam; Henstelling, Saint, Rotterdam; Tamerlatlei Farnham, Wiscasset. • CLEARED OUTWARDS JULY, 23. The Grace, Pearson, for Demerara; George Washingto n, Holdrege, New York ; Lady Rowena, Muir, ,Charleston' Mary Catherine, Colburn, Riga ; Superb, Willis, Pernan y buco; Albio n , U n d erwoo d, B om b ay ; Adventurer, Montreal; Maria, Cape of Good Hope ; Solon, Wood, New York; Shannon, Wilam, Rio Janeiro ; Rapid, Mathews, Messina' &c. ; Mazeppa, Gell, Gibraltar; Wilberforce, Harrisc:t Maranham ; G eo r ge C ann i ng , St. Thomas's; Ceres, Woo d, Rotterdam ; Neptune, Elsineur. SAILED, Jour 23. The Janet, Burns, for Genoa and Leghorn ; Williata' Pernambuco ; Joseph Winter, Nuttal, Buenos Ayres Crawford, Philadelphia ; William, Sheldon Baltimore' Fairie Q u e en° , H oo k er, Calcutta; Velocity, Hayti ; Thoolgsl Leech, Comb, C ape o f Good Hope; Eliza, Novelared, C )° ": stantinople; Hayes, Neagle, Barbadoe s; - Venus, Andre Leg evehornEar Columbus, Palmer, New Y or k ; S ceptre, Doughti Rl; l Grey, Stetrnan, Singapore and Canton ; Mail, Scott, Atka; Cowie, Cadiz; Her cu l ean , HextatA' Calcutta; Liebe, Warren, Alexandria ; Sir John Newport, Nichols, Quebec; Killigrew, Noye, Gibraltar. TELEGRAPHED. Off Holyhead, inward bound, at Five, A.m., the Victoria: from Pernambueo. Outward bound, the Gertrude, Grenad a ' Glasgow, New York. Off Point Lynas, outward bound, at Six P. m. , the Star, fo r New York. ( ADVERTISEMENT./ PATENT LEVE R WATC H E , With silver double-b o t tom cases r; 6 . With silver hunting cases ; This celebrat e d cons t ruct i on (the most accurate on: Avlb e b ,, watch can be made) is now offered, with the latest improvenle" e. the detached escapement, jewelled in four h o l es , c aps , e , hand to mark the seconds, hard enamel dial, arn% maintaining pls to continue goi ng w hil e w i nd i ng up, at the above price, by T. G` SAVORY, Working Silver and Goldsmith, 47, Cornhill, Lonato RIR W. On the 20th i ns t. , at Bath, the lady lS of Captain Simmons of the Rifle Brigade, of a daughter, still-born. On the 15th inst., at Swains'-hill, near Hereford, the lady of V. Elton, Esq., of a son. On the 17th inst., the lady of W. Boulnois, jun., of Govel" street, of a son. On the 21st inst., at Sidmouth, Devon, the lady of Rol, er t G Austen, Esq., o" a (laughter. • I sar of On the 24th i ns t., at U' . Park-gate, KensirEton the Captain C. Forb3s, ate, of the 17th Lancers, a daughter. - MARRIE t zbeth, ' nn the 21st inst., George E7; Dan k , E sq., to Er a daughter of the late J. Lucas, Esq., of Hateham Grove. On the 23d inst., at 'Lewisham, K en t, J o h n Castendick, ; s i r / of Lewisham, to Allison All en , d aughter of the late Caleb 3 ' shall, Esq., of Dulw ich. On the 21st inst., at Astro ss H ouse, Northamptonshire, ""i s s ! , Willes, of Astross 11 Barton, Esq., of Ran g e rnoar H ouse, Staff ordshire, to Leu us ii youngest daughter of the late R e y . W. S. ° Northamptonshire. DIED. On the 17th inst., at W ort hi ng, the infant son of John ' do e ' Esq., of the Middle Temple. On the 20th i ns t., at F aringdon Hall, Berks, agedBo, 'llrP Bowles. On the 16th inst., at Scheveningen, near the Have. ag ed Mr. Jonathan Tabor, of Rotterdam. A ~09 On the 22d inst. at Upper Berkeley-street West, Mary ft" relict of the late J, ' lles, Esq., of Armagh. g et; On die *lO inst., in Lower Belgrave street, Eaton-squar., _ose, •piplagthtreliet of the Rev. J. Fielding, late of Denbigh' h° Surrey. On the 21st inst., at Llanwern, Monmouthshire, Lady Sa l u' burf' reliet of Sir H. Salusbury, Bart. , Loudon : P r i n t e d an d P u bli s h e d by MURDO YOUNG, 6'l 1,40, • 112, Strand, at Th e S un Office, No. 112, Strand, in the eu _0 of Middlesex. -~ ~ .